Breakthrough in Alzheimer's

[Pliny]

yuk, yuk... Pliny, sorry - I've only been skimming this thread... your playing a MLW neurologist was certainly 'heady stuff'

Good one!

One thing is certain, being at MLW has improved your sense of humour.

and, of course, your star projections certainly belie your luddite self - but, uhhh... carry on!

What do you mean "luddite"? Following Pope Gore will wind you in the luddite category in short order. Scientists are resolving real problems, they aren't all concentrating on AGW. How weird is that, eh? Some of them think other things are more important.

Skim on....

Edited August 5, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

I think we already have a good idea of just how "size matters" in regards to brain function. Brains of more intelligent species tend to have larger numbers of neurons, but more importantly, a greater level of interconnectedness. That is, each neuron is connected to more other neurons. Additionally, the whole structure can often be packed tighter, in more clever three dimensional geometries, reducing transmission time and thus increasing computation rates in the neural network. So making a brain bigger adds somewhat to its capabilities, but it is actually making it denser, more complex, and more interconnected, that seems to make the most dramatic differences.

For example, elephants have about 2x the number of neurons as humans (elephants have 200 billion, humans 100 billion). However, the mass of an elephant brain is ~6 kg, while the mass of a human brain is about 1.5 kg. While our brains are smaller and have a lesser number of neurons, they have about double the neuron density (elephant: 33 billion/kg, human: 67 billion/kg), leading to humans' greater intelligence.

This is obviously a very simplified argument, just using the above example for illustration of the concept.

Perhaps you should read this:Objective reality

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

What does this mean for the-brain-is-all theorists?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Pliny

[Bonam]

What does this mean for the-brain-is-all theorists?

I dunno, but I think I reject the linked article as nonsense. I mean come on, seriously?

In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level.

It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolvedpuzzles in psychology.

In particular, Stanislav Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness.

Also, what is a "brain-is-all theorist"?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Bonam

[Yesterday]

Perhaps you should read this:Objective reality

What does this mean for the-brain-is-all theorists?

From the article...

An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists.

OK principles fine, but just because the brain might operate on these said principles and regardless of the reference to telepathy I can not see the universe being a holograph. I am more inclined to view the connection between electrons as one related to time and how we could theoretically fold space and time together, that size does matter in this regard that gravity reduces ability to fully utilize time by helping to create larger and larger masses. An electron on the other hand would have very little friction from speed so is much more capable and a neutrino even more so. I find the fact that a neutrino can phase shift so very fascinating. Yes, I do enjoy Stephen Hawkins' theories and others of this nature.

[Mansour Mohammed Jaffa]

Alzheimer's is God's punishment against the wicked, who have sinned in life. But he is merciful; in his vengeance, he allows them to forget the darkness of their deeds, which no doubt otherwise torments their dreams.

[Pliny]

Alzheimer's is God's punishment against the wicked, who have sinned in life. But he is merciful; in his vengeance, he allows them to forget the darkness of their deeds, which no doubt otherwise torments their dreams.

Before one gets Alzheimer's then he must believe he has sinned.

[Pliny]

I dunno, but I think I reject the linked article as nonsense. I mean come on, seriously?

In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level.

It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolvedpuzzles in psychology.

In particular, Stanislav Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness.

It is a theory to explain the found phenomenon, as is the theory of relativity.

Also, what is a "brain-is-all theorist"?

If the brain does not exist then you do not exist.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

From the article...

OK principles fine, but just because the brain might operate on these said principles and regardless of the reference to telepathy I can not see the universe being a holograph. I am more inclined to view the connection between electrons as one related to time and how we could theoretically fold space and time together, that size does matter in this regard that gravity reduces ability to fully utilize time by helping to create larger and larger masses. An electron on the other hand would have very little friction from speed so is much more capable and a neutrino even more so. I find the fact that a neutrino can phase shift so very fascinating. Yes, I do enjoy Stephen Hawkins' theories and others of this nature.

Stephen Hawkings theory of time as outlined in his book "A Brief History of Time" is indeed the theory held by most physicists today. Me - I think it is way off base.

You and Bonam, and I suppose it is the general consensus, both seem to cleave to the idea that time has some sort of dimension. In order for it to have dimension, and I suppose that dimension would be now, the past and the future. if that is true then energy, matter and space would have to exist in it's dimension. No one has demonstrated that there is any matter or energy or space outside of "now". Nor could there exist any matter or energy or space outside of now. Although the concept of time contains the concepts of past and future they have not been proven to exist objectively. The past and the future cannot be folded into the present. They would have to exist which would mean that all is predetermined and there is no chaos or randomity in the physical universe and that condition removes then, all purpose.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'm constantly amazed at how little people know about scientific theories, and how much they think they know about them.

[Yesterday]

I'm constantly amazed at how little people know about scientific theories, and how much they think they know about them.

Brings to mind a thing my grandmother always says....'If you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all.'

Were you going to try to correct us and then just figured an insult was easier? I can already correct one thing I said....I confused size with density. I would of been open to any corrections from you before the snot trip.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Yesterday

[Guest TrueMetis]

Brings to mind a thing my grandmother always says....'If you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all.'

Were you going to try to correct us and then just figured an insult was easier? I can already correct one thing I said....I confused size with density. I would of been open to any corrections from you before the snot trip.

I was talking about Pliny. And yes an insult is much easier than trying to explain to someone how space-time works.

[Yesterday]

I was talking about Pliny. And yes an insult is much easier than trying to explain to someone how space-time works.

OK, I can agree with you over the insult bit, . Space time is a huge study and I have the rest of my life to learn about it and thankfully don't have to pass any exams . It does fascinate me.

What Pliny is saying has interest and merit. I'd like to understand more.

[Yesterday]

Stephen Hawkings theory of time as outlined in his book "A Brief History of Time" is indeed the theory held by most physicists today. Me - I think it is way off base.

You and Bonam, and I suppose it is the general consensus, both seem to cleave to the idea that time has some sort of dimension. In order for it to have dimension, and I suppose that dimension would be now, the past and the future. if that is true then energy, matter and space would have to exist in it's dimension. No one has demonstrated that there is any matter or energy or space outside of "now". Nor could there exist any matter or energy or space outside of now. Although the concept of time contains the concepts of past and future they have not been proven to exist objectively. The past and the future cannot be folded into the present. They would have to exist which would mean that all is predetermined and there is no chaos or randomity in the physical universe and that condition removes then, all purpose.

Life, experience, these are too random to exclude either the predetermined response or the completely random response. I don't think I view time as really existing the way we apply it. In my mind, the reason time seems to be so important is because we age, we die. In the grand scheme of things perhaps only speed, space and density really matter. Really, I think time is more of a man made explanation of an effect and not a very good one.

I read that Stephen King book, it was pretty good. One of my favorites actually. Do you have a link for a paper about this theory of 'now'?

Edited August 8, 2010 by Yesterday

[Pliny]

I'm constantly amazed at how little people know about scientific theories, and how much they think they know about them.

As has been true throughout the ages, and today is no different, most of what is considered scientific theory in any current time is forgettable. My theory is that I have probably forgotten more than you think you know.

Perhaps it's the Alzheimer's.

[Pliny]

I was talking about Pliny. And yes an insult is much easier than trying to explain to someone how space-time works.

You mean the theory of how space-time works. If you know how space-time works let the world know.

[Pliny]

Life, experience, these are too random to exclude either the predetermined response or the completely random response. I don't think I view time as really existing the way we apply it. In my mind, the reason time seems to be so important is because we age, we die. In the grand scheme of things perhaps only speed, space and density really matter. Really, I think time is more of a man made explanation of an effect and not a very good one.

I read that Stephen King book, it was pretty good. One of my favorites actually. Do you have a link for a paper about this theory of 'now'?

Stephen King? Do you mean Stephen Hawkings?

I did mention a Stephen King book earlier called "The Langoliers"

The Stephen Hawkings book was "A Brief History of Time"

Actually, all "time" needs is a good definition.

Wikipedia definition

Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars.

Mechanically, the definition is simply "a measurement of the movement of objects in relation to each other in space".

Physics attempts to give it a qualitative substance, as though it is a tangible thing, as tangible as matter and as dimensional as space.

Philosophically, Buddhism describes a cycle of life - Birth, life, death and that there is only now. So time is something that matter and space exist in and there is only now and a progression of nows.

So time is the fact that matter and space continues in a progression of nows. Time then, is only a perception that change has occurred. No change would mean there is no time.

On a purely human sensory level we could observe no change but we have arrived scientifically at the point where we know nothing in one instant is the same as it was in the next instant on an atomic level so change is constantly occurring and so time units can be smaller. So science is perhaps looking for the smallest time unit.

The smallest change which will explain the origin of the universe, matter and space. So we start looking at the minutiae that has become quantum mechanics and string theory.

The big bang theory may be correct, I have a suspicion it is, but the prior condition must be nothing or at least something that is not matter, space, energy or time but is capable of creating it and in order for it to continue, able to keep it changing.

That's my line of thought.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Pliny

[Guest TrueMetis]

As has been true throughout the ages, and today is no different, most of what is considered scientific theory in any current time is forgettable. My theory is that I have probably forgotten more than you think you know.

Perhaps it's the Alzheimer's.

That's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis, it's blind speculation.

You mean the theory of how space-time works. If you know how space-time works let the world know.

You need to look up what a theory is in a scientific context, quick do it know before you make even more of a fool of yourself.

So time is something that matter and space exist in and there is only now and a progression of nows.

So time is the fact that matter and space continues in a progression of nows. Time then, is only a perception that change has occurred. No change would mean there is no time.

To late.

[Pliny]

You mean the theory of how space-time works. If you know how space-time works let the world know.

You need to look up what a theory is in a scientific context, quick do it know before you make even more of a fool of yourself.

Isn't a theory in the scientific context still a theory?

You needn't explain the scientific theory I can get that from the horses mouth. What's the true space-time explanation that you claim to be privy to knowing? The world awaits.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Pliny

[Guest TrueMetis]

Isn't a theory in the scientific context still a theory?

You needn't explain the scientific theory I can get that from the horses mouth. What's the true space-time explanation that you claim to be privy to knowing? The world awaits.

I feel like I'm talking to a creationist about evolution and all he keeps saying it evolution is "just a theory." Explain to me Pliny just what you think a theory is?

[Bonam]

Everything is a theory. What matters is how well supported a theory is. Evolution is supported by the evidence very well. Our understanding of space and time continues to grow. But the fundamental understanding of spacetime on macroscopic scales, which is framed in Einstein's general theory of relativity, is supported by evidence so beautifully and perfectly that it is hard to imagine that it would be incorrect. On the other hand, our understanding of spacetime on quantum scales is definitely incomplete.

[Yesterday]

Stephen King? Do you mean Stephen Hawkings?

I did mention a Stephen King book earlier called "The Langoliers"

The Stephen Hawkings book was "A Brief History of Time"

Actually, all "time" needs is a good definition.

Wikipedia definition

Mechanically, the definition is simply "a measurement of the movement of objects in relation to each other in space".

Physics attempts to give it a qualitative substance, as though it is a tangible thing, as tangible as matter and as dimensional as space.

Philosophically, Buddhism describes a cycle of life - Birth, life, death and that there is only now. So time is something that matter and space exist in and there is only now and a progression of nows.

So time is the fact that matter and space continues in a progression of nows. Time then, is only a perception that change has occurred. No change would mean there is no time.

On a purely human sensory level we could observe no change but we have arrived scientifically at the point where we know nothing in one instant is the same as it was in the next instant on an atomic level so change is constantly occurring and so time units can be smaller. So science is perhaps looking for the smallest time unit.

The smallest change which will explain the origin of the universe, matter and space. So we start looking at the minutiae that has become quantum mechanics and string theory.

The big bang theory may be correct, I have a suspicion it is, but the prior condition must be nothing or at least something that is not matter, space, energy or time but is capable of creating it and in order for it to continue, able to keep it changing.

That's my line of thought.

Hi Pliny, yes I meant Stephen King's book the Langoliers...I liked it.

Now I remember you writing that it was Buddha who conceived the 'now' theory. Personally, even though I couldn't adhere to it I find it an interesting conclusion to come to. Makes me curious about what experiences he had to draw from.

I share the same suspicion as you about the big bang and wonder if it mirrors the collapse of a black hole on a magnificent scale. I also have an affinity for the string theory but a slightly different mental representation of the grid in that the one I envision is much more fluid and the interactions between the strings much more complex and redundant.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Yesterday

[Pliny]

I feel like I'm talking to a creationist about evolution and all he keeps saying it evolution is "just a theory." Explain to me Pliny just what you think a theory is?

That organisms adapt to their environment or evolve is only a part of the whole concept of Evolution. Humans can adapt their environment to themselves contrary to the theory. There is a "missing link" in the theory where it is thought humans bridged over from the animal kingdom. That's a missing part of the concept so it is theorized that there is some jump from apes to human but there is no really in between stage that is a definite explanation of the missing link.

The other part of the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life except as electro-chemical reactions which means that matter existed before life. Creationists would refute that and say that life (probably as God) preexisted matter.

It indeed does seem rather unlikely that matter and space came into being without purpose or because time implies a beginning and an end that matter could possibly have no beginning and thus no end.

The only thing that could exist outside of time would be what we call life.

So in real terms the big debate is about whether there is a beginning or there isn't a beginning to the physical universe. If time exists as part of the physical universe then time must have a beginning.

Or as creationists argue God, the Prime Mover, or whatever it is termed,(life) created time and is the only thing that could have no beginning and no end as it existed prior to time.

So a theory explains some or most, depending upon it's accuracy, of the phenomena observed and provides information for practical application and prediction. As long as there are unexplained phenomena it remains a theory. A later theory that includes the explanation of previously unexplained phenomena as well as already explained phenomena by a previous theory or theories would be more accurate but to entirely shed the label of theory, and become fact the theory would have to explain all phenomena, provide practical application of it's findings and provide laws of prediction in the practical application of the works and explain any new discoveries or predict new discoveries. It is no longer then a theory.

Will either the theory of evolution or the theory of creationism

explain all things? They are both theories still and not facts yet.

So both need either some modification or a new theory will combine and explain the shortfalls of both, or completely discredit one or the other or both.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Hi Pliny, yes I meant Stephen King's book the Langoliers...I liked it.

It sort of made me wonder about past and future and made it seem rather impossible that anything existed outside of the present except from a subjective point of view.

Now I remember you writing that it was Buddha who conceived the 'now' theory. Personally, even though I couldn't adhere to it I find it an interesting conclusion to come to. Makes me curious about what experiences he had to draw from.

The idea is to escape the cycle of life or achieve Bodhi, the state of being separate from the body or knowing one is separate from the body and not subject to the cycle of life. Apparently, he stably achieved this state.

I share the same suspicion as you about the big bang and wonder if it mirrors the collapse of a black hole on a magnificent scale. I also have an affinity for the string theory but a slightly different mental representation of the grid in that the one I envision is much more fluid and the interactions between the strings much more complex and redundant.

Well, science and philosophers and religion will eventually arrive at a conclusion but I think they all have a bit of the truth. The problem is that they wilfully and entirely ignore each other when neither of them provide the final explanation.

[Pliny]

Everything is a theory. What matters is how well supported a theory is. Evolution is supported by the evidence very well. Our understanding of space and time continues to grow. But the fundamental understanding of spacetime on macroscopic scales, which is framed in Einstein's general theory of relativity, is supported by evidence so beautifully and perfectly that it is hard to imagine that it would be incorrect. On the other hand, our understanding of spacetime on quantum scales is definitely incomplete.

Quantum mechanics derives out of the theory of relativity and if they could gain an understanding of spacetime on quantum scales that would entirely validate the theory of relativity. In my opinion, it won't though because there are other unexplained phenomena that fall outside the theory.

[Yesterday]

It sort of made me wonder about past and future and made it seem rather impossible that anything existed outside of the present except from a subjective point of view.

Genetic memory...how much of what we experience that we can connect to a past beyond birth could come from genetic memory? Is it possible that genetically produced sensorimotor memory could contain in forms not related to imagery or language, identifiable information akin to the storing of traumatic experience in a non image specific way that gets accessed in specific situations and utilized by imagery facilitating full recall. (darn it I can't remember the other term for the image related memory tissue)...

This could allow for the past being non-existent yet allow for both a predetermined effect on the future and most meta-physical experiences.

The idea is to escape the cycle of life or achieve Bodhi, the state of being separate from the body or knowing one is separate from the body and not subject to the cycle of life. Apparently, he stably achieved this state.

I am not well versed in Buddhism but I had thought it was merely physical disconnection he thought to achieve. I should do some reading.

Well, science and philosophers and religion will eventually arrive at a conclusion but I think they all have a bit of the truth. The problem is that they wilfully and entirely ignore each other when neither of them provide the final explanation.

I see a coming together, however roughly, of science and philosophy through quantum physics but religion is going to be the tough one to ever bring on board anything other than a god of some sort.